1 P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 3714

S E BA S T I AN DAN Z E GR E AN, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent

P ET I TI ON FOR RE VI EW OF AN ORDER O F TH E B O A RD O F I M M I G RA TI O N A PPEA LS

( A gencyN o. A 029- 115- 082)

A r gued: M ar ch 11, 2010

B e f o re : B A R R Y , J O R D A N a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N ,

C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 13, 2010)



### Davi d Ka pl an, Es q. ( Ar gue d) J am e s J

. Or l ow, Es q. O rlo w , K ap lan& H o h en stein 62 0 C hestnu t Stree t Sui t e 656 Phi l a de lphi a , PA 19106- 0000 Co un se l f or Peti ti on erOur s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w f o r q u e s t i o n s o f l a w whi ch, of 1 cou rs e, w ou l d incl ud e st atutor yi nterpret at i on , i s de novo

. Fadiga -2- 

### Ke vi n J

. Conway , Es q. ( Ar gue d) Shar on Cl ay , Es q. Un it ed Stat es Departm ent of Justi ce Offi c e of I mm i gr at i on Li t i gat i on, Ci vi lDi vi s i on P. O. Box 878 Be n Fr ankl i n St at i on W a s hi ngt on, DC 20044 Couns e l f or Res ponde nt

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge I. A fede r al r egul at i on s t at es th a t“[a ] n i m m i gr at i on j udge may t er m i nat e r emoval pr ocee di ngs t o per m i tt he al i en t o pr ocee d t o a fi nal hear i ng on a . . . pet i t i on for natur al i zat i on w hen the al i en has es t abl i s hed pr i m a fac i e el i gi bi l i t y for natur al i zat i on and the mat t er i nvol ves exce pt i onal l yappea l i ng orhum ani t ar i an fa ct or s . ” 8 C

. F. R

. § 1239. 2( f)

. T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) has i nt erpr et ed t hi s r egul at i on to requi r e thatt he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y (“D H S ”) p rese n t “so m e affi r m at i ve comm uni cat i on r egar di ng [an a l i en’ s ] pr i m a fa ci e el i gi bi l i t yfor n a tu ra liz a tio n ” b e f

o re re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s c a n b e te rm in a te d

. In r e Acosta Hi dal

go , 2 4 I. & N . D e c . 1 0 3 , 1 0 7

- 0 8 ( B I A 2 0 0 7 ); s ee als o Mat t er of

C r uz , 15 I. & N

. D ec. 23 6, 23 7 (B IA 19 75 ). T ho se c o u r t s t h a th a v e r e v i e we d t h e BI A’ s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n , t o wh i c h we acc or d defe r ence , have c oncl uded thati ti s nei t her“err oneous [n] or i ncons i s t entw i t h t he r egul at i on, ” and w e agr ee. See, e. g. , 1v. A t t ’ y G en. , 4 8 8 F .3 d 1 4 2 , 1 5 3 -5 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). W hen, as her e, t he B I A “s i m pl ys t at es t hati taff i r m s t he 2 IJ’s de cisi o n fo r th e rea so n s set fo rt h in that d ec isi o n , . . . the IJ’s o p inion ef

fe cti v elyb ec o m es th e B IA ’s, an d , ac co rd ing ly , a c o u rt m us t r evi ew t he IJ ’ s deci s i on. ” Zhang v. G onz al es , 405 F. 3d 150, 1 5 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). -3- P er r i el l o v. N

apol i t ano , 579 F. 3d 135, 142 ( 2d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng Au e rv . Ro bbi ns , 5 1 9 U .S . 4 5 2 , 4 6 1 (1 9 9 7 )); Her nandezde A nders on v. G onz al es , 4 9 7 F .3 d 9 2 7 , 9 3 4 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). J u x t a p o s e d a g a i n s t§ 1 2 3 9

. 2 ( f ) , a s i n t e r p r e t e d b yt h e BI A, i s a fe der al s t atut e w hi ch s t at es , as r el eva n t h ere , t hat“no appl i cat i on fornatur al i zat i on s hal l b e consi der ed byt he A t t or ney G ener al i f t her e i s pendi ng agai ns tt he appl i canta r emoval pr ocee di ng. ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1429. B uti f an a ppl i cat i on for natur al i zat i on cannoteven b e consi der ed w hi l e a r emoval pr ocee di ng i s pendi ng, how , t hen, can t he r equi s i t e “ affi r m at i ve comm uni cat i on r egar di ng [an a l i en’ s ] pr i m a fa ci e el i gi bi l i t yfor natur al i zat i on” be pr ovi ded s uch tha tan i m m i gr at i on j udge ca n d e c i d e whe t h e rr e mov a l p r o cee d i n g s ma yb e t e r mi n a t e d ? See Hi dal go , 2 4 I. & N

. D ec . at 10 7 -08

. T h e o b v io u s a n s w er is, “It can’ t
. ” R emoval pr ocee di ngs qui t e s i m pl yh av e pr i or i t yover n a tu ra liz a tio n a p p lic a tio n s . I ti s t h i s t e n s i o n b e t we e n 8 C. F

. R. § 1 2 3 9

. 2 ( f ) a n d 8 U. S

. C. § 1429 t hat w e ar e cal l ed upon t o at t empt t o r econc i l e— the k not w e ar e as ked t o unt angl e. A s the S econd Ci r cui tputi ti n P e rr iello v. N apol i tano , “ [ t] h e la w , in e f f e c t, s e e m s to b e c h a s in g its ta il.” 579 F. 3d at138. T he pet i t i on befor e us i l l us t r at es t he ac cur acyof t hatobs er vat i on. I n J ul y20 0 6, D H S, ci t i ng 8 U

. S. C

. § 1429, deni ed pet i t i onerSe b a s t i a n Ze g r e a n ’ s a p p l i c a t i on fornatur al i zat i on beca us e “ther e i s a r emoval pr ocee di ng pendi ng agai ns t y ou, [and t hu s] y ou are i neli gibl e for natur al i zat i on . ” (A R at 24

. ) In A ug ust 2 0 0 7 , the Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) d e n ied p e tit io n e r’s m o tio n to t er m i nat e t he r emoval pr ocee di ngs beca us e he had notes t abl i s hed pr i m a fa ci e eli g i bi l i t yfornatur al i zat i on, and the B I A aff i r m ed. 2 (Id

. at2, 28- 30. ) I ndeed, beca us e pet i ti o n er ha d appl i ed for natur al i zat i on aft ert he r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai nst h im had-4- comm ence d, i tw as i m possible for hi m t o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i t yfor n a tu ra liz a tio n . II. W e nee d notdi s cus s t he cour s e o f nat ur al i zat i on l aw t hat has l ed to thi s aw kw ard if n ot al t og et her u nw orkable r esul t

— m ost re c e n tly, P e rr iello h a s mo r e t h a n a d e q u a t e l yd o n e s o . Ra t h e r , we m ove di r ect l yt o w hyt he answ ert o t hi s conundrum i s nott o do as p e titio n e r su g g e sts a n d p e rm it th e IJ to m a k e th e p rim a f a c ie det er m i nat i on. Fi r s t , the B I A ’ s concl us i on i n Hi dal go th a t it cannotcons i derel i gi bi l i t yi s cons i sten t w i t h 8 U

. S. C

. § 1421, w hi ch di ct at es t hatt he “s ol e author i t yt o natur al ize p er s ons as ci t i zens . . . i s confe r r ed u p o n the A t t or neyG ener al

. ” See P e rr iello , 5 7 9 F .3 d a t 1 4 2 . T o d o a s p e tit io n e r su g g e sts w o u ld , in Hi dal go ’ s wor d s , “ r e q u i r e t h e [ I J ] a n d t h e Boa r d t o r ender d e c isio n s o n a n a lien ’s p rim a f a c ie e lig ib ili ty
. . . w h e re w e n o t o n ly l ack jur i sdi ct i on ov er the ult i m at e i ssue, bu t m ayal so l ack ex pert i se a s to t h e s p e c if

ic is s u e re g a rd in g p ri m a f a c ie e lig ib ility.” 2 4 I. & N . D e c . at 1 0 8 . T h e iss u e o f e x p e rtise a sid e , w e o w e d e f e re n c e to t he B I A ’ s concl us i on as t o t he s cope of i t s j ur i s di ct i on s i nce, w hetheri tw as i nt erpr et i ng a s t atut e ora r egul at i on, t he i nt erpr et at i on w as notarbi t r aryorcapr i ci ous , norpl ai nl yerr oneous o r i n c o n s is te n t w ith th e re g u la tio n . S e e C h e n v . A sh c ro ft , 381 F. 3d 221, 224 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “[W ] heneve r C ongr es s has expl i ci t l yl eft a g a p f o r th e a g e n c yto f

ill , . . . th e a g e n c y ’s [ in ter p re tatio n ] is gi ven contr ol l i ng w ei ghtunl es s [i t is] arbi t r ary , capr i ci ous , or m ani fes t l ycontr ar yt o t he s t atut e. ” (i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks and c itatio n s o m itt e d )); A b d ill e v . A sh c ro ft , 242 F. 3d 477, 484- 85 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “[W ] hen an a gency is i nt erpr et i ng i t s ow n r egul at i on, r athert han a s t atut e i tadmi ni s t er s , . . . t he agenc y ’ s i nt erpr et at i on [ is] c o n tro lli n g ‘u n les s it is pla in lye rro n e o u s o r in c o n sis ten t w ith th e re g u latio n .’” ( in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ) ) . S e c o n d , the p lain l anguage of 8 U

. S. C

. § 1429 pr ohi bi t s t he A t t or neyG ener al fr om even c ons i der i ng an a p p li cat i on fornatur al i zat i on i f a r emoval pr ocee di ng i s pendi ng agai ns tt he appl i cant
. A s t he P e rr iello C o u rt n o ted , itw o u ld b e “ o d d if th e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l a n d d istric t co u rts w e re b a rre d f

ro m c o n sid e rin g n a tu ra liza tio n a p p lica tio n s w h ile r emoval pr ocee di ngs ar e pendi ng, y et t he B I A and I J s

— w ho have n o ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r s u c h a p p lic a tio n s in a n yc a s e

— w e re n o t.”-5- P e rr iello , 5 7 9 F .3 d a t 1 4 2

. T her e i s , i ndeed, “cons i der abl e conf us i on” i n t he i nt erpl ay betw een a r eas onabl yi n terpret ed fe der al r egul at i on and an ot herw i s e uncha l l enged fed era l s t atut e, confus i on caus ed byt he f a ilu re to a m e n d § 1 2 3 9 .2 (f ). Id

. T hi s confus i on, how ever , i s not forus t o r es ol ve and the t ens i on betw een the r egul ati o n an d t he s t atut e i s notforus t o at t empt t o r econc i l e. T hatj ob i s , r ather , for t he D H S or forC ongr es s , an d w e u r ge thati tbe undert aken e x p e d itio u s ly. III . B e c a u se p e tit io n e r h a s n o t es tab li shed p ri m a f a c ie e lig ib ili ty fornatur al i zat i on under§ 1239. 2( f)

— i ndeed, gi ven the “pr evai l i ng m uddl e, ” i d. at141, h e ca n n o t do so a s l ong as r emoval p ro c e e d in g s a re p e n d in g a g a in st him

— th e p e tit io n f o r rev iew w ill b e d e n ie d

.